Now, isnt it more feasible to include nonforest land that can support deer in estimating overwintering capacity? IE: a county that is 50%forest, 50% crop, brush, reverting farm that had a density goal of 24 dpfsm would now have a goal of 12 dpsm with no actual change in deer population. (I have left streets, buildings, parking lots and yards out of the mix for this example only)
They did more than just adjust the OWDD goals to reflect the addional land area. They also reduced the goals at the same time . For example,elk Co. has 753 FSM and 829 total SM. The previous goal was 21 DPFSM ,so 21 X 753= 15,813 OWD. The new goal is 15 DPSM ,so 15 X 827 = 12,435.
So while changing from DPFSM to DPSM they also reduced the OWDD goal by 3,400 deer. If you do the same thing for Northampton Co. the goal was reduced by 1,118 OWD.
Furthermore, although they included the additional land area,they didn't assign any habitat value to any additional land. They are still only counted forested habitat as suitable deer habitat and that is wrong.